/fa/ - Fashion

http://www.thombrowne.com/webstore/product/MAG004APB001

>>6477441
>mfw that shop prices

Who the hell is Thom Browne?

A good Versace would probably cost less than that.

>>6477462
>being this pleb
>not knowing who Thom Browne is
>actually thinking of Versace is a good brand

>>6477462
>Who the hell is Thom Browne?
well youre obviously new here....but i wasnt too serious about that briefcase anyways. whats your budget?

>>6477468

Versace is known as a top-tier fashion brand everywhere, stop trolling.

>>6477470

Yes I'm new here :)
Is he the guy who dressed Obama?

Anyway, I'd prefer to stay below 150€.

I need it mostly for the laptop and a few paper documents, possibly a soft one and not much 007-like.

>>6477480

top lel

>>6477480
ill sound like a snob saying this, but i really dont know anything in your pricerange. best idea is probably to go offbrand, look for local cobblers and craftsmen ect. or shop for used ones. used mulberry can go very cheap.
theres one brand i can think of, i got my phone pouch from them and its very high quality. ill just link some of their messengers.
http://www.hardgraft.com/collections/bags-travel/products/flatpack-heritage
http://www.hardgraft.com/collections/bags-travel/products/flatpack-smoke
http://www.hardgraft.com/collections/all/products/laptopbag-oldfashioned
http://www.hardgraft.com/collections/all/products/back2back-allgrey
the leather is really nice and it comes at a fair price.

oh god lmao
>Versace is known as a top-tier fashion brand everywhere
bet you think LV and Gucci are also amazing

>>6477533

What's exactly wrong about it for you?

>>6477522

I can spend more, I don't really have a limit but I just don't want to exaggerate.
Suggest whatever you like, I'll take a look and decide what to do.

>>6477559
Those brands are the mainstream brands that people buy simply because they know other people will look at them and think they are rich. Those brands have a few acceptable pieces once in a while but mostly they are covered in obnoxious labeling, and the designs are usually quite tacky but acceptable simply because it's a designer piece which in my opinion stupid.
>1000$ bag with no money in it

>>6477608

How is Thom Browne supposed to be better than them?
Being the Obama stylist leads pretty much to the same effect.

>>6477634
The truth is there is nothing wrong with gucci, just poorfags in asos and flyknits getting upset about it.

Versace was hot shit back in the day when Gianni was alive, but it's fallen off since he died and the collections are gaudy and lack the original charm they had back when, the quality has declined too.

Unlike Gucci and Versace, Thom Browne is new talent and doesn't come from a house that has decades over work under its belt, he made his own label and put's out incredibly over the top collections and I mean that in the good way. His approach is really creative and stylized completely rethinking different pieces of clothing and styles. Despite his outlandish runway shoes he is still able to put out very wearable clothes. All of his stuff is made in america and top quality. Overall one of the best designers out right now.

Idk about his relation to obama and don't really care #fuckobama

>>6477634
Thom Browne is getting all the big attention he's getting because the only house who's doing men's suiting on the level he is is Lanvin.

>>6477429

>>6477634
How is Thom Browne even in this conversation in the first place? (Okay I just went back in thread and figured it out)

Thom Browne is known primarily for his take on the classic men's suit and not obnoxiously branded accessories banking on the previous success of the house label.